Posted
by
Soulskill
on Monday October 10, 2011 @11:23PM
from the common-paranoia dept.

New submitter Kyrall writes "A man was questioned by security guards and then police after taking a photo of his own child in a UK shopping center. The center apparently has a 'no photography' policy 'to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers and to have a legitimate opportunity to challenge suspicious behavior.' He was told by a security guard that taking a photo was illegal. He also said that a police officer claimed, 'he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.'"

Ironically, Britain is said to have more state-operated cameras than anywhere else on Earth (but it still cannot solve 80% of its crimes). It seems that the more cameras the state uses, the fewer it allows ordinary citizens to use. This may be a manifestation of a psychiatric illness on the part of the some administrators, who have placed cameras into a god-like position that only they are allowed to officiate.

You think that's bad? Just go into your local Walmart with a pen and paper and start writing prices down and time how long it takes them to stick security [google.com] on you. I have just discovered that Tesco has the same policy [guardian.co.uk].

It seems pretty simple to me. It's their store and if they don't want me taking pictures there I can either just not do it or I can tell them to kiss my ass and leave and never go back. I think it would depend on how they presented it to me. I don't know about the UK but around here there are bunches of stores. I've written a couple off my list and apparently I wasn't the only one. Both stores went tits up after a few years of treating their customers like crap, if you piss off your customers you can't

I had a regulator once tell me (in the role of VP of R&D) that I might have to fire my software team and hire an new one to develop the product under proper regulations, since the current team couldn't be trusted to not copy their "unregulated" work. He was about 22, straight out of regulator training school, he was also talking to the whole software development team (me.) We managed to get past that little bump, but the implication was that mere exposure to the "illegally developed code" was enough t

It's not endemic to the UK or Europe. I was told the same thing trying to take a picture in a Target parking lot outside of Baltimore, MD. I didn't think much of it at the time, but what if my car had been damaged and I needed to document it for insurance purposes?

Furthermore, (and this might be a UK/US discrepancy) IANAL but I was pretty sure all a strip mall security guard could do was ask you to leave the premises. Confiscating private property seems like a torts lawyers dream, IMHO. All you would have to do is refuse to surrender your camera/phone and taunt the minimum wage rent-a-cop until he slugs you, and never have to work again.

Actually, I think I might spend more time photographing strip malls... working sucks...

In general, the *USA* laws say that you can legally photograph anything visible from public property that does not require "specialized equipment", and anything on public property. You cannot legally take photographs of places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, including in restrooms, within private dwellings, and underneath clothing. Exceptions exist, but the law is far less restrictive than social norms are about photography.

I don't know that it's theft as such in the UK, but it's certainly not allowed.

There was supposed to be an education campaign within the UK police force to stop them from pulling this crap, as they've been shown repeatedly to be confiscating equipment without any powers to do so. And a mall cop certainly has no right to do that.

Taking a picture is most certainly not illegal either. It may be against company policy and may result in you being removed from and banned from the mall, but this is in no way illegal. (If you come back or refuse to leave, that's trespassing, sure.)

The campaign was fronted by ACPO (the private organisation who advise the police how to enforce and interpret laws) after the Met (Greater London ) and City of London police spent a small fortune paying compensation to photographers arrested and detained under the terrorism act(s).

I'd not heard of it being such a big problem outside the major metropolitan centres, but apparently it still is.

Also, in Scotland, trespassing is a lot harder to arrest for in this case. But they could still do him for creating a

Not in the US. There are limits as to what you can do on private property which is open to the public. A restaurant is also "private property", but you can't refuse to serve someone because they are Black, or Mormon, or Australian.

Yeah, not so much. They can't set discriminatory rules like "men only" or "no blacks", and neither can they confiscate your property if they don't like you taking pictures. They can ask you to leave, and take you to civil court over the photos. That's pretty much it.

Property, as such, means that the owner has the right to deny access to it. Whether the property is private or public is not the issue. The only thing at issue is that it is a property. Once the owner has indicated the access is conditioned on certain terms, you can reject the terms and leave the property. But the owner can't take arbitrary actions as you leave. So the next time someone tells you "you are on my property therefore I deem it necessary to behead you", you can safely assume that they are n

Of course they can. Nevertheless, property owners have limited ability to do anything. Generally, all they can do is ask the photographer to stop, then ask them to leave. At that point all they can do is call the police who can remove the person for trespassing. If the property owner has posted signs that photography is not allowed, then they can more or less skip right to calling the police. Still, there is nothing more severe here than trespassing.

IANAL, but I have fun with a DSLR, and educate myself on what I legally can or can't do with it.

IAAL and you have fundamentally misunderstood what has happened here. Since you like to educate yourself, I'll share some of my precious time;)

This is not happening pursuant to any general laws relating to photography, which are probably quite similar in the UK and the US, but under under contract law.

As I understand this situation... When the occupant (that is the resident owner, or leaseholder) of private property (eg. a shopping centre) sets conditions of entry, and displays these conditions of entry in a place visible to the entrant, the entrant is taken to have agreed to those conditions by virtue of entering the premises. The quid pro quo here is that you agree to be bound by the conditions of entry, in return for an undertaking by the occupant not to sue you in trespass.

This is, for example, what gives supermarkets the "right" (it isn't a right, you've just given permission) to search your bags where this is stipulated in the conditions of entry.

The shopping centre in question apparently made it a condition of entry that no photographs be taken by entrants. And this gentleman was apparently in breach. I have not read the conditions of entry, but they may have included an agreement to surrender all "... equipment; film; and other media to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC or its authorised agents" on breaching said condition.

I doubt that this works very differently in the US, the UK or indeed any other common law country, (although there may be some variance as to what limits the various legislatures have set as to what contractual conditions might be enforceable).

Confiscation of cameras in the US is theft.

"Confiscation" without a statutory right of confiscation (as some LEOs may have) or the consent of the owner, has been a common-law crime in Britain since at least the 12th century and a statutory one since the 19th, known variously as 'larceny' and 'theft.' Without reading the actual conditions, however, we don't know whether or not the gentleman in question had agreed (albeit unwittingly) to hand over his camera.

The story, I'm led to believe, has a happy ending, the corporation in question having agreed to remove this onerous condition.

The larger problem --the privatisation of the High Street and the concomitant abrogation of individual rights this involves --is, in the face of the relentless invasion of the mall, unlikely to be so happily resolved.

Are you sure that they can 'include an agreement to surrender all "... equipment; film; and other media to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC or its authorised agents" on breaching said condition.' ?

If so - can I set up a store in the U.K. and put a sign up at the entrance saying "by entering, you agree to pay me a thousand pounds" and then confiscate the money in the wallets of all those who are stupid enough pass through a door without reading the fine print?

I have not read the conditions of entry, but they may have included an agreement to surrender all "... equipment; film; and other media to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC or its authorised agents" on breaching said condition.

The precedent here in England is that such terms are unenforceable unless specific attention is drawn to them. See for instance the rather famous comment from Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [wikipedia.org]. A term granting a right to confiscate personal property merely because it has been used in a particular place seems to me to be very much the kind of term Denning was talking about in that judgment.

AIUI, Scottish law has a tendency to follow English in such matters, so I would presume the case is similar ther

This is, for example, what gives supermarkets the "right" (it isn't a right, you've just given permission) to search your bags where this is stipulated in the conditions of entry.

And when I rescind permission, as for example I always do when some "greeter" demands to see the receipt for merchandise I just paid for not 15' away? The signs I always see say "$PLACE reserves the right to search blah blah", which I interpret to be nonsense. You simply can't reserve a right you don't have. Now if it said somet

IAAL and you have fundamentally misunderstood what has happened here. Since you like to educate yourself, I'll share some of my precious time;)

IANAL, but I'll point out that you forgot to add "this is not a legal advice". You forgot the fact that courts routinely strike clauses in contracts that are considered unconscionable, or over burdening. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that any court in a commonwealth country or the US would strike down any condition of entry that allowed a mall security guard to confiscate private possessions. As far as I know, the best they can do is ask you to leave (or charge you with trespassing). You also forgot to mention

"...and displays these conditions of entry in a place visible to the entrant, the entrant is taken to have agreed to those conditions"

Now if I conducted a statistically valid survey of entrants to the mall and found that only 0.2 % of them recalled having seen theposted "conditions of entry", and that none could accurately recall any particular condition, could I make a case thatthe contract was not valid because it relied on a false model of human perception, attention, comprehension etc. and assuch the no

Unlikely, I used to work security in a highrise with a sizable food court area, it's unlikely that we could have gotten away with that for the simple reason that there was always a camera on us when we were doing those sorts of confrontations.

Any mall large enough for people to be in a crowd is going to be similarly set up. If you're going to places with insufficient camera coverage of the bouncer, you should really think again about going in, those cameras aren't just for the protection of the owner and th

if the people who responded to this actually had some knowledge about the United Kingdom's legal structure.

Probably not going to happen.

In Canada, the Security Guard's case would be dubious. While a shopping mall is private property it's not "private" private property. They could legitimately ask you to leave, but not confiscate your property.

This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the case in the United Kingdom.

This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the case in the United Kingdom.

Well, it does have one thing in common - I doubt a Canadian (or American) security guard has been given any better (read: significant) training in what is or isn't legal behavior, or what they legally can or cannot do when dealing with a "suspect".

In America we had Homeland Security people telling photographers, post 9/11 (obviously), they couldn't take photos of bridges because they might be used for terrorism. The statement didn't have any basis in law... it seems they were just winging it. Fortunately some photographers pushed back, and now people know a bit more about their rights when it comes to photography in public spaces.

If this UK dad pushes back hard enough, maybe UK security guards (or, more likely, their bosses) will end up a touch better informed regarding what sorts of restrictions can and cannot be placed upon behavior in shopping malls.

It depends a great deal on the state that you're in. I know that the SEIU wants more training for security, largely because it promotes workplace safety as well as giving them more leverage when bargaining for a new collective bargaining agreement.

Unfortunately, the conditions still largely suck and the licensing isn't anywhere near enough. And I say that from experience, they cover the basics of the law, but there's so much more that one really needs to know. Around here one doesn't require a license at al

Same in Norway. Any private property is considered 'public' if you, the owner, treat it as such. Which means malls, parking lots etc.You cannot demand or expect privacy by visiting such places (you might get filmed or photographed by someone without consent - and you can photograph someone without their consent).

I assume this particular case is a misguided case of protecting the children from pedos and women from upskirt shooters, coupled with a security guard with a God complex.

The security guard is within his rights to tell the customer that he is not allowed to take photographs within that environment, if it is private property.
However confiscating the device is opening another can of worms, that would be considered theft.

Well, that's complicated. If they have it posted that "No Photographs are allowed" then technically the pictures are THEIR property, not yours, and the same laws would apply which cover them being able to search, let's just say, a backpack which you've placed stolen items into.

This is so painfully wrong, legally and logically, that I'm just going to respond by listing some animals.

The issue here has to do with various European treaties and the so-called "personality rights." the mall doesn't want to be sued, so they have this policy. Since it is private property, they can make threats like that.

I'd guess the stores will be a little pissed about this, since it obviously got press. No doubt it started with some shitbrick Mall Ninja trying to feel important:
http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/ [lonelymachines.org]

Braehead shopping centre has changed their policy on the matter and issued an apology to Mr White. There was a facebook campaign to boycott the shopping centre, perhaps it was the power of social networking that put the pressure on them as it has hit 20,000+ likes in a very short time.

If I ever find myself in such situation, (And I do not live in the UK) I would ask the officer for the law that specifically forbids me from performing a specific action. Having said that, on several occasions in Australia, I have been asked by security guards in shopping centres to show the contents of my backpack. Every single occasion I have refused as I will not accept being treated like a thief. I have had arguments with security staff and even with managers of the largest shopping chains. On one occas

The mall cop could ask you to leave, and have you arrested for trespassing if you don't, but he sure as hell couldn't confiscate your camera without a serious lawsuit. If a mall security guard tried tho take my camera, I'd tell him to fuck himself. I am a lawyer (but not your lawyer), so just let them try to place their damned dirty ape hands on me!

Just like I tell them "no" when stores want to see my receipt as I exit the store. Businesses often purport to have rights they don't really have, i.e., "we reserve the right to inspect packages." There is no such right, absent a lawful shoplifting detention.

Don't be a sheep. Know your rights and stand up to unreasonable and intrusive behavior.

The mall cop could ask you to leave, and have you arrested for trespassing if you don't, but he sure as hell couldn't confiscate your camera without a serious lawsuit. If a mall security guard tried tho take my camera, I'd tell him to fuck himself. I am a lawyer (but not your lawyer), so just let them try to place their damned dirty ape hands on me!

Indeed. I am a lawyer too (but not your lawyer!), though in Canada. And up here, while this sort of thing varies from province to province, shopping malls are generally regarded as public spaces, which means that you can't be removed without a good reason. So if you're just standing around, doing something within the confines of the law (e.g. taking a picture), and a mall cop wants to throw you out, you can (attempt to) nail the mall owner for a Charter violation.

As do I, but keep in mind there are exceptions such as membership only stores like Sam's Club and Costco where you sign a contract stating that you will do just that.

Yes, but the contract doesn't say, "and if I don't show my receipt, you may detain me by force." And I'm about 99% certain Costco wouldn't be dumb enough to try. Yes, you'd be in breach of the agreement, but how would the person at the door even know who you are without seeing your membership card, which you wouldn't show on the way out eith

On the other hand, compassion is free, and compassionate people realize that some sales drones might be there due to hard times, and might be treating you in the sales-drone-fashion that they do because they fear their managers more than they fear your opinion of them.

If this happened to me I would make a big scene, refuse to turn over the camera and also charge anyone who tried to take away my camera with assault and theft. If the mall guards detained me I would arrest them for false imprisonment.
People cannot go like sheep. You must fight back with barred teeth.

That being said, no one said anything about assaulting the police... except you.

And of course the post I replied to in the first place! WTF do you think the "fight back with barred (sic) teeth" bullshit was supposed to mean? Didn't you notice my post was about fighting?If you are going to throw insults such as "coward" and "really not a human being" around you really should try to actually read the thing you are referring to first. Couple that with your self ego pumping of "I'll be with the cowboys" and

There are already many posts on here questioning whether or not the security guard could legally confiscate the camera. The posts title is be a bit misleading. It is a case of having too many antecedents to choose from for the pronoun "he". The article does _not_ state that the security guard was within his rights to confiscate the camera. It states that the _officer_ was withing his rights to confiscate the camera.

The actual law says that to confiscate his camera they'd have to arrest him for taking pictures likely to be used in a terrorist attack. I imagine the court case that followed, and then the lawsuit, would be an interesting gong show.

At the grapefruits, I chance upon some Chinese tourists who are taking pictures of the fruit and conversing. I try some very rusty mandarin, they laugh delightedly and they don't slap me [easily possible because tone-error changes question-mark into 'horse', for example].

Immediately arrives lady security guard, telling them that they are not allowed to take any pictures of fruit. I remonstrate and ask for her name. She replies [she has an east european accent and perhaps yearns for the good old days, although she is a youngish woman] that she is 'security' and cannot give me a name, obviously not, I think. So I ask for the name of her boss who is 'on holiday'. I ask where he works and she says that he is 'on holiday', not understanding that I want to know whether he is head-office or wharf. Finally I go away with a name, though she might have lied for 'security purposes'.

I used to admire and give a lot of custom to Waitrose, because of the partnership structure etc. but now, after this, it's demonstrating that it's just another sleazebag corporation with its best years behind it. I have a cooperative card now, perhaps we'll go there for grapefruit photography and purchase from henceforth, forward.

In a mall in the U.S., I was taking a picture of a "Wet Floor" sign I found funny because the stickman on it looked like he was falling the same way I did when I broke my leg. I was still on crutches recovering from that injury, and some guy from a cell phone vendor booth had the nerve to tell me that I couldn't take pictures in the mall because "believe it or not it's private property". But he didn't try to take my phone, and I just crutched away.

About a month later, my girlfriend was harrassed in a Canadian sandwich shop for taking pictures of wall art she thought was cute. An employee had the audacity to harrass her (a paying customer, no less), block the exit, and intimidate her into deleting the photos from her phone in front of him. He spouted some nonsense about "corporate espionage". After some very loud complaints by me, the owner of the sandwich chain apologized profusely, disciplined the employee (I think he's actually gone now), and mailed us a gift certificate.

So, needless to say I've done some reading up on this...from what I can tell, the law does actually seem to be on the side of the fascists because civil liberties have eroded so badly. It's difficult to tell if the situation is worse in the U.S. or Canada, but in both countries there are a number of ways in which you can be legally harrassed for taking photos inside a place of business. However, I don't believe anyone but an actual policeman, federal agent, etc. (not a rent-a-cop or employee) can legally confiscate your property (your phone) or look through it.

This "OMG no photos" mindset is not only the product of police-state paranoia, it's fed by the ideologues of intellectual property. The irony is that businesses should be embracing the free advertising...many of these photos will end up on the Web in some form, likely mentioning the location, maybe even tagged with that info and the name of the store, products, and other data-mining fodder. Not to mention the fact that cellphone cameras are an everyday reality now, and bothering anyone who uses them in a store makes for horrible PR and customer service in a very precarious sales economy.

Texas has what is known as an "Improper Photography" law. Relax, those of you who couldn't take a good picture to save your life. This law is aimed squarely at people whose photography offends other people, generally the people who shoot photos of complete strangers. The message seems to be that we don't tolerate street photographers in Texas. Now, that isn't how the law is sold to the public. This is supposed to be an anti-unwitting porn star law. It was born of the need to stop people from photographing strangers in locker rooms, dressing rooms and other places where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the law goes beyond that. If you stand at a children's football game and shoot photos of the children, you stand a good chance of an angry confrontation, followed by police investigation. One professional photographer was arrested because people thought he was shooting too many photos of women at a street festival (his case was dismissed). IOW, the people who are being arrested under this law aren't in private places; they are out in public. Most of those arrested people who are now reported in the press do seem seriously sketchy, but nothing in the law would discourage someone from pressing charges against any photographer who shoots photos of several strangers in public.

In theory, the Supreme Court says that I have the Constitutional right to shoot videos of anyone who is in a public place. In practice, several Texans have informed me that if they see me shooting photos of anyone's children, they will inflict on me significant bodily harm. This law is part of their justification that they are in their legal rights to do so.

I also thought it is "required" for photographers to ask for a "model release" if they take recognizable pictures of people.

Not for news reporting, typically only for illustration or advertising, so it'd be fully legal to run a news article with "Here's happy people at the $foo festival in $bar, see our picture slideshow". And a hobby photographer doesn't need a model release unless he intends to publish the image in a recognizable form, for example a painter may wish to photograph a scene and paint it later with altered faces. Absolutely no signatures are required to take the photo.

The Dutch government started a new campaign yesterday asking everybody to take pictures in shoppingmalls when ordinary people spot shoplifters, violent behaviour, etc.
With this campaign they try to increase the chance of getting the criminals behind bars.
When people take pictures of people doing illegal stuff then the court have more evidence to convict the criminals.

Usually malls are private property. Owners generally have the right to dictate behavior on their property. You have the right to forbid people from taking pictures when you allow them into your own place of residence if you so choose, mall owners have the same right.

Now, standing across the street on the sidewalk, taking a picture of the mall, would likely be a permissible activity from public property. But the law doesn't usually force property owners to allow people on their property to do any specific activity.

Actually, reality is a little bit more complex, the owner of the mall is within his rights to forbid the use of camera's within it's confines. However, that has to be clearly marked and the only thing he can legally do is ask you to leave the premises if you do take pictures. He does not have the right to delete your pictures nor to confiscate your device.

He also doesn't have the right to say that breaking his mall's rules is illegal. If you break policy, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, you are then trespassing. That is illegal. Despite what cops (or pompous property owners) say, photography is not a crime. They can neither confiscate your camera nor make you delete the photos.

Of course, that only applies to the US; YMMV but I expect most countries are very similar.

"Causing a public disturbance" isn't actually a criminal offence, at least not in Scotland. The closest I'm aware of is "behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress", but I suspect it would be quite hard to prove in this case. Particularly as the police have recently received guidance that people being offensive to them isn't in actual fact likely to cause them distress, because accepting offense is part of their job...

A common-law "breach of the peace" may also qualify, but in order for that to be proved, the offender must be shown to have threatened damage to person or property (or behaved such that a reasonable person believed they were under threat) whereas it was actually the centre owner who was threatening damage to property by trying to delete the pictures.

Like England and Wales, trespass (by itself) is not a criminal offence in Scotland, so you cannot be arrested for trespass. You can be required to leave, and you can be required to rectify any damage caused by your trespassing, but you cannot be arrested for it. There are exceptions: trespass on crown land, "encamping", and so on, but none would apply here.

Causing a public disturbance *is* grounds to issue an ASBO, so the photographer needs to watch out he doesn't get one of those. If he does, repeating the behaviour *would* be a criminal offence. But without actually issuing the order before the behaviour occurs, this is irrelevant from the point of view of arresting/prosecuting him.

So, no, I don't think they had a legal leg to stand on.

Above is not legal advice. I'm not a lawyer, nor Scottish, but do take an interest in these things.

The "thing is" that all property is held in fee simple and ultimately belongs to the government, and most of what you can and cannot do anywhere is defined or enforced or allowed to be enforced thanks to the government. This will never change as long as the world is ruled by humans. So the question becomes whether you want a government which can be bought by the many or bought by the few. The answer will depend on whether the dominant philosophy in the country is to invent rights for the powerful or rights for the weak. America just might possibly be slowly changing its mind, but it's still firmly in the former camp.

"But won't somebody please think of the mall owner!" OK, I'm thinking of him, and I've decided that where lots of public eyes may go, he must permit private photographs as an extension of the natural faculty of memory (which may be photographic).

Even before that, if you were the feuholder of the land, you owned it outright, whereas the closest equivalent in England, the freeholder, merely has a licence to occupy the land in perpetuity from the Queen. I'm thinking more of the Norman invasion in 1066 which didn't happen in Scotland.

However, you do still need to get planning permission to do things with the land, and you can still be subjected to a compulsory purchase order.

I'm not saying I agree with the mall owner, but that according to the law, he can and has the right to ask you to leave. That's the only right he has. I'm clarifying this solely to inform people of their rights, if you are ever caught in this situation, they do not have the right to confiscate your camera nor can they demand you delete your pictures.

My new mall has a policy that it's against the rules to be black in it. So, can my rent-a-cops call real cops and make black people leave and maybe arrest them too? There's a big difference between "policy" and "illegal." When your "policy" becomes "law" then we're back to fiefdoms.

Well, malls are pretty much the temples of modern day capitalism. I mean, look at how Vegas is about to take its place up there with the Great Pyramid at Gaza and the Taj Mahal and the Hagia Sophia as one of the wonders of the world... and Vegas is pretty much the biggest mall of them all.

You're walking on hallowed ground! Kowtow low! And respect the powers that have provided you with all that is good upon this mortal earth!

There's a pyramid in Gaza? Better not let the Israeli's know about it. They'll just declare the area around the pyramid a "restricted military zone", kick out the people who have been living there since before there was an Israel, then two years later allow Israelis to start building in the zone.

the Law is DIFFERENT in Scotland you know........ because we have a separate and distinct legal system.
while you are correct in saying that they might be able to stop you taking a pic there's no chance that a security muppet from a private firm has any rights to confiscate your property.. in Scotland that would theft along with "wilful deprivation of property"
Also doing so i Glasgow would be a bold move..lol the Weedgies would have yer eye out for less!
i asked a mate of mine who is a Lothian and Borders(Edinburgh area) police officer and he said and i quote "that's a load of balls bud, they can't really stop you and definitely cannot take your kit, the force of law is not on their side" he then told me what the security dude could be charged with for taking your kit. Also under certain circumstances if the security "man-handle" you they can be done for assault as well!

in the UK, which this is, the owner is entirely at their liberty to say whether or not you can take a photo.

Not quite. Small difference. They have no right to force you to do or not do something, but they can demand that you leave if you refuse their requests. And they certainly can't demand your property. (such as take your camera) or demand your actions (such as delete photos taken) Short summary: you don't lose any of your rights simply because you're on someone else's property. BUT being ON their

Also, there is a huge difference between "illegal" and "against policy".

As commercial private property, shopping centres can ask you to leave for whatever (reasonable) reason they see fit, and if you dont comply, can be forced by police under trespassing laws. Breaking their policies in the first place however is not illegal.

No, that is NOT the real question. The real question is why the fuck we are building a society for ourselves that is undoing all the hard-won freedoms we've fought for and earned in the last few hundred years. If one of the ways people exercise those freedoms is to tweet and blog all day long, theta's up to them. You're also free to ignore them.

Open to the public isn't the same as public property, but it DOES impose a number of limitations that would not apply to private property that is not open to the public. For example, in my home, I can be as racist as I like. I need not ever invite anyone of a race I don't like into my home. A place that is open to the public does NOT have that option.

You might be surprised to learn that one of the first applications of practical personal photography has been proud parents taking informal photos of their kids. It seems to be quite popular. That was a few years before the internet, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

Interesting that you say that! It seems there was a fair sized protest on Facebook [facebook.com] (and presumably email). From that page:

Further to the previous statement Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC have confirmed that they will be changing the photography policy at the 11 directly owned centres and that at the other 3 centres, which owned in partnership with other companies, they will be discussing with their partners the policy change and recommending that it be adopted.

As you will have seen Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC have issued a formal apology and said that they have changed their policy on photographs and will allow family and friends to take photographs. I do intend to keep the dialogue going with Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC and clarify that this aplies across all of 14 of their shopping centres including The Trafford Centre and Lakeside.

I don't know how many people participated, but it seems to have been enough.